We evolved physically and cognitively in order to successfully compete for survival on Earth. In this process, efficiency and necessity ruled. So, it only makes sense that we have logical capabilities only suited to the macro environment. From an evolutionary perspective, it would be both inefficient and unnecessary for humans to understand anything beyond the occurrences of their present environment. This would explain why Quantum Mechanics is so difficult to grasp. The result is that Logic cannot possibly be accurate. Even the conception of logic (unchangeable rules that govern reality), might be false...and only appear true. There may be no rules at all.

The conclusion is this: Attempts to understand things of a radically different nature than we are accustomed to are futile. Thus God is unapproachable by all means.

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 7/25/2012 7:12:14 PM, 000ike wrote:We evolved physically and cognitively in order to successfully compete for survival on Earth. In this process, efficiency and necessity ruled. So, it only makes sense that we have logical capabilities only suited to the macro environment. From an evolutionary perspective, it would be both inefficient and unnecessary for humans to understand anything beyond the occurrences of their present environment. This would explain why Quantum Mechanics is so difficult to grasp. The result is that Logic cannot possibly be accurate. Even the conception of logic (unchangeable rules that govern reality), might be false...and only appear true. There may be no rules at all.

The conclusion is this: Attempts to understand things of a radically different nature than we are accustomed to are futile. Thus God is unapproachable by all means.

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

The Fool: The cart is before the horse!!!> You logic must be certain too know that evolution is certain, not the other way around. For we understand in terms rational understaning.

Circularity problem:If you say that we think this way because of evolution, then if I ask why because of evolution. You are forced to say because we think these way.

around and around. we go.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 7/25/2012 7:12:14 PM, 000ike wrote:We evolved physically and cognitively in order to successfully compete for survival on Earth. In this process, efficiency and necessity ruled. So, it only makes sense that we have logical capabilities only suited to the macro environment. From an evolutionary perspective, it would be both inefficient and unnecessary for humans to understand anything beyond the occurrences of their present environment. This would explain why Quantum Mechanics is so difficult to grasp. The result is that Logic cannot possibly be accurate. Even the conception of logic (unchangeable rules that govern reality), might be false...and only appear true. There may be no rules at all.

The conclusion is this: Attempts to understand things of a radically different nature than we are accustomed to are futile. Thus God is unapproachable by all means.

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

The Fool: The cart is before the horse!!!> You logic must be certain too know that evolution is certain, not the other way around. For we understand in terms rational understaning.

Circularity problem:If you say that we think this way because of evolution, then if I ask why because of evolution. You are forced to say because we think these way.

around and around. we go.

You're misunderstanding me. Your response would be valid if I claimed Logic FALSE,...but I didn't. I said that it was incomplete, and thus useless in any environment that is radically unfamiliar (i.e the quantum world, anything beyond the universe). In our present environment, logic has proven itself accurate..and evolution occurs in our current environment, ergo I can use logic to prove the truth of evolution while simultaneously saying that evolution undercuts logic.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 7/25/2012 7:12:14 PM, 000ike wrote:We evolved physically and cognitively in order to successfully compete for survival on Earth. In this process, efficiency and necessity ruled. So, it only makes sense that we have logical capabilities only suited to the macro environment. From an evolutionary perspective, it would be both inefficient and unnecessary for humans to understand anything beyond the occurrences of their present environment. This would explain why Quantum Mechanics is so difficult to grasp. The result is that Logic cannot possibly be accurate. Even the conception of logic (unchangeable rules that govern reality), might be false...and only appear true. There may be no rules at all.

The conclusion is this: Attempts to understand things of a radically different nature than we are accustomed to are futile. Thus God is unapproachable by all means.

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

The Fool: The cart is before the horse!!!> You logic must be certain too know that evolution is certain, not the other way around. For we understand in terms rational understaning.

Circularity problem:If you say that we think this way because of evolution, then if I ask why because of evolution. You are forced to say because we think these way.

around and around. we go.

The cause of our reasoning, is because of evolution.But we conclude that its evolution is because of our reasoning.

The Fool: why?

Because evolution is the cause of our reasoning.

The Fool: why?

because we have reasoned that its evoluton..

The Fool: why? and so forth and so on.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 7/25/2012 7:12:14 PM, 000ike wrote:We evolved physically and cognitively in order to successfully compete for survival on Earth. In this process, efficiency and necessity ruled. So, it only makes sense that we have logical capabilities only suited to the macro environment. From an evolutionary perspective, it would be both inefficient and unnecessary for humans to understand anything beyond the occurrences of their present environment. This would explain why Quantum Mechanics is so difficult to grasp. The result is that Logic cannot possibly be accurate. Even the conception of logic (unchangeable rules that govern reality), might be false...and only appear true. There may be no rules at all.

The conclusion is this: Attempts to understand things of a radically different nature than we are accustomed to are futile. Thus God is unapproachable by all means.

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

The Fool: The cart is before the horse!!!> You logic must be certain too know that evolution is certain, not the other way around. For we understand in terms rational understaning.

Circularity problem:If you say that we think this way because of evolution, then if I ask why because of evolution. You are forced to say because we think these way.

around and around. we go.

The cause of our reasoning, is because of evolution.But we conclude that its evolution is because of our reasoning.

The Fool: why?

Because evolution is the cause of our reasoning.

The Fool: why?

because we have reasoned that its evoluton..

The Fool: why? and so forth and so on.

You didn't even respond to me....just repeated yourself. The argument is circular because of they way you word it. Evolution isn't what proves reasoning,...Evolution is what CREATED reasoning. In order for a statement to beg the question, it must gain justification from a premise that gains justification from the original statement.

No one ever mentioned using evolution to justify logic....so the circularity you're referring to doesn't exist.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 7/25/2012 7:12:14 PM, 000ike wrote:We evolved physically and cognitively in order to successfully compete for survival on Earth. In this process, efficiency and necessity ruled. So, it only makes sense that we have logical capabilities only suited to the macro environment. From an evolutionary perspective, it would be both inefficient and unnecessary for humans to understand anything beyond the occurrences of their present environment. This would explain why Quantum Mechanics is so difficult to grasp. The result is that Logic cannot possibly be accurate. Even the conception of logic (unchangeable rules that govern reality), might be false...and only appear true. There may be no rules at all.

The conclusion is this: Attempts to understand things of a radically different nature than we are accustomed to are futile. Thus God is unapproachable by all means.

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

The Fool: The cart is before the horse!!!> You logic must be certain too know that evolution is certain, not the other way around. For we understand in terms rational understaning.

Circularity problem:If you say that we think this way because of evolution, then if I ask why because of evolution. You are forced to say because we think these way.

around and around. we go.

You're misunderstanding me. Your response would be valid if I claimed Logic FALSE,...but I didn't. I said that it was incomplete, and thus useless in any environment that is radically unfamiliar (i.e the quantum world, anything beyond the universe). In our present environment, logic has proven itself accurate..and evolution occurs in our current environment, ergo I can use logic to prove the truth of evolution while simultaneously saying that evolution undercuts logic.

The Fool: Nothing undercuts logiic/math. NOTHING. Quantum physics is an INDUCTIVE theory, It is contingently true. It can be proven wrong tommorow. It is itself depended upon mathmatical principles and so is evolution. Every generation thinks they have the final answer. 200 hundred years ago, scientist would think Newtonian physics was the final explanation, just the same. But it was because of random that they changed the theory, Now the same is happening again. But they are not trying to change it. You can't create technology

Random is not an explanation. If you ask me to explain something and I say its random. What have you learned more then not knowing it the first place. In what sense is this knowledge usefull. In no sense at all.

If something came out of know where, is it really random. or is shoudl you say I don't know how it happened.

The Point is that there is no distinquishable difference between ???? and random. Therefore random=Sh!t happens=not knowledge (aka I have no clue)

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 7/25/2012 7:12:14 PM, 000ike wrote:We evolved physically and cognitively in order to successfully compete for survival on Earth. In this process, efficiency and necessity ruled. So, it only makes sense that we have logical capabilities only suited to the macro environment. From an evolutionary perspective, it would be both inefficient and unnecessary for humans to understand anything beyond the occurrences of their present environment. This would explain why Quantum Mechanics is so difficult to grasp. The result is that Logic cannot possibly be accurate. Even the conception of logic (unchangeable rules that govern reality), might be false...and only appear true. There may be no rules at all.

The conclusion is this: Attempts to understand things of a radically different nature than we are accustomed to are futile. Thus God is unapproachable by all means.

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

The Fool: The cart is before the horse!!!> You logic must be certain too know that evolution is certain, not the other way around. For we understand in terms rational understaning.

Circularity problem:If you say that we think this way because of evolution, then if I ask why because of evolution. You are forced to say because we think these way.

around and around. we go.

The cause of our reasoning, is because of evolution.But we conclude that its evolution is because of our reasoning.

The Fool: why?

Because evolution is the cause of our reasoning.

The Fool: why?

because we have reasoned that its evoluton..

The Fool: why? and so forth and so on.

IKE: Evolution is what CREATED reasoning.

The Fool: but why is that true?

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that because it is not evolutionarily advantageous to logically reason about that which is outside the human experience, we must therefore be incapable of doing so/lack sufficient cognitive capacity to do so.

Interesting. But I disagree. Your evidence for this is citing our inability to fully grasp Quantum Mechanics for reason of complexity. But you then extrapolate that by saying we are unable to a comprehend things of a "radically different nature." We grasp a large amount of molecular physics, astrophysics, astronomy in general etc.

This are both complex and radical topics, yet we grasp much of them. Why? What evolutionary advantage do they serve? What makes god even a complex or radical concept?

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

I'm not going to spend too much time with this but needless to say basic logical truths form the basis of our rationality. I don't know what to say now that you've doubted them, I don't know what I could say that could re-instill your faith in the law of non-contradiction or excluded middle - either it's raining outside or it's not raining outside. The reason people don't understand quantum mechanics is because it's batshit complicated and few people have the time and energy to devote themselves to understanding it. You could probably say the same thing about Hegel (though understanding is a matter of degrees.)

At 7/25/2012 7:12:14 PM, 000ike wrote:We evolved physically and cognitively in order to successfully compete for survival on Earth. In this process, efficiency and necessity ruled. So, it only makes sense that we have logical capabilities only suited to the macro environment. From an evolutionary perspective, it would be both inefficient and unnecessary for humans to understand anything beyond the occurrences of their present environment. This would explain why Quantum Mechanics is so difficult to grasp. The result is that Logic cannot possibly be accurate. Even the conception of logic (unchangeable rules that govern reality), might be false...and only appear true. There may be no rules at all.

The conclusion is this: Attempts to understand things of a radically different nature than we are accustomed to are futile. Thus God is unapproachable by all means.

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

Well, I think there are different logics to different systems. We're accustomed to Aristotitelian true/false logic in the context of most of our debates. Quantum physics has taught us that the universe probably doesn't follow this simple dichotomy most of the time. It says that the logic of the universe at the most fundamental level that we have yet to perceive is probabilistic. But that still leaves us with the problem: what are we actually perceiving? E-prime is useful here, because it forces us to consider the fact that we can't leave ourselves out of the equation when perceiving something in a certain context. This is what the Fool alludes to whenever he asks, "what is 'is'?" Well "is" is a really presumtpuous word of us to use to make assertions about what anything "is." We say the sky "is" blue, but it isn't really the color blue, nor does it even really have a color. In E-prime you would say, "I perceive the sky to be blue," or "the sky appears blue, to me." You can't say an electron "is" a wave and it "is" a particle at the same time without making a logical self-contradiction. To be more accurate we'd say the electron "appears as a wave when measured with instrument x," or that it "appears as a particle when measured with instrument y." It all becomes much more subjective and objective at the same time, and we just go further down the rabbit hole. That seems, to me, however, to be an improvement that will eventually lead us to know more, even if it's only more about how little we know.

"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

I'm not going to spend too much time with this but needless to say basic logical truths form the basis of our rationality. I don't know what to say now that you've doubted them, I don't know what I could say that could re-instill your faith in the law of non-contradiction or excluded middle - either it's raining outside or it's not raining outside.

The reason people don't understand quantum mechanics is because it's batshit complicated and few people have the time and energy to devote themselves to understanding it.

The Fool: it a form of appealing to ignorance, most professional dont' claim to know all of him. One of my best friend majored in quantum mechanics and he says there is quite a few unjustified old assumptions.

You could probably say the same thing about Hegel (though understanding is a matter of degrees.)

The Fool: No Hegel starts to makes no sense when he tries to fit theology in it. This causes him to fall apart. Throwing any God, of supernatural entities will bust up your philosophy. Because its and appeal to ignorance.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 7/25/2012 7:12:14 PM, 000ike wrote:We evolved physically and cognitively in order to successfully compete for survival on Earth. In this process, efficiency and necessity ruled. So, it only makes sense that we have logical capabilities only suited to the macro environment. From an evolutionary perspective, it would be both inefficient and unnecessary for humans to understand anything beyond the occurrences of their present environment. This would explain why Quantum Mechanics is so difficult to grasp. The result is that Logic cannot possibly be accurate. Even the conception of logic (unchangeable rules that govern reality), might be false...and only appear true. There may be no rules at all.

The conclusion is this: Attempts to understand things of a radically different nature than we are accustomed to are futile. Thus God is unapproachable by all means.

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

Well, I think there are different logics to different systems. We're accustomed to Aristotitelian true/false logic in the context of most of our debates. Quantum physics has taught us that the universe probably doesn't follow this simple dichotomy most of the time. It says that the logic of the universe at the most fundamental level that we have yet to perceive is probabilistic. But that still leaves us with the problem: what are we actually perceiving? E-prime is useful here, because it forces us to consider the fact that we can't leave ourselves out of the equation when perceiving something in a certain context. This is what the Fool alludes to whenever he asks, "what is 'is'?" Well "is" is a really presumtpuous word of us to use to make assertions about what anything "is." We say the sky "is" blue, but it isn't really the color blue, nor does it even really have a color. In E-prime you would say, "I perceive the sky to be blue," or "the sky appears blue, to me." You can't say an electron "is" a wave and it "is" a particle at the same time without making a logical self-contradiction. To be more accurate we'd say the electron "appears as a wave when measured with instrument x," or that it "appears as a particle when measured with instrument y." It all becomes much more subjective and objective at the same time, and we just go further down the rabbit hole. That seems, to me, however, to be an improvement that will eventually lead us to know more, even if it's only more about how little we know.

The Fool: No quantum physics can't tell us anything about logic. Blue is not a wave. you can Halucinate blue. Without any waves at all. One major with quantum mechanics is that there is a bold assertion that they are seeing reality directly when all physical preception is being processed. For example there are radio waves flying around but you can't see them. That is untill natural science can account for how the mind is processing the information they are percieving it will always have HUGE hole in the method.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 7/25/2012 8:55:13 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that because it is not evolutionarily advantageous to logically reason about that which is outside the human experience, we must therefore be incapable of doing so/lack sufficient cognitive capacity to do so.

Interesting. But I disagree. Your evidence for this is citing our inability to fully grasp Quantum Mechanics for reason of complexity. But you then extrapolate that by saying we are unable to a comprehend things of a "radically different nature." We grasp a large amount of molecular physics, astrophysics, astronomy in general etc.

This are both complex and radical topics, yet we grasp much of them. Why? What evolutionary advantage do they serve? What makes god even a complex or radical concept?

The Fool: randomness. is NOT comprehention. It of the lack of comprehension.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 7/25/2012 8:55:13 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that because it is not evolutionarily advantageous to logically reason about that which is outside the human experience, we must therefore be incapable of doing so/lack sufficient cognitive capacity to do so.

Interesting. But I disagree. Your evidence for this is citing our inability to fully grasp Quantum Mechanics for reason of complexity. But you then extrapolate that by saying we are unable to a comprehend things of a "radically different nature." We grasp a large amount of molecular physics, astrophysics, astronomy in general etc.

This are both complex and radical topics, yet we grasp much of them. Why? What evolutionary advantage do they serve? What makes god even a complex or radical concept?

"What makes quantum physics awkward to get to grips with is that in many ways the workings of particles at a subatomic scale contradict everyday logic. ‘We are in an area which is very difficult to imagine because it's so different from the macroscopic world we live in,' explains Vlatko Vedral, professor of quantum information science at Leeds University. ‘So it's very difficult to relate everyday objects we know to the behaviour of small objects.'" (http://www.physics.org... )

The examples you named don't qualify as radically different. And I noticed that you cited astronomy, astronomy on the very large macro scale gets very fuzzy too. Does it seem logical to you for there to be an infinitely dense, infinitely round object? What about the nonexistence of space prior to the big bang? What is there if there is no space? The Macro and Micro are what qualify as "radically different"....and they do seem at odds with our natural perceptions of logic.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 7/25/2012 8:55:13 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that because it is not evolutionarily advantageous to logically reason about that which is outside the human experience, we must therefore be incapable of doing so/lack sufficient cognitive capacity to do so.

Interesting. But I disagree. Your evidence for this is citing our inability to fully grasp Quantum Mechanics for reason of complexity. But you then extrapolate that by saying we are unable to a comprehend things of a "radically different nature." We grasp a large amount of molecular physics, astrophysics, astronomy in general etc.

This are both complex and radical topics, yet we grasp much of them. Why? What evolutionary advantage do they serve? What makes god even a complex or radical concept?

"What makes quantum physics awkward to get to grips with is that in many ways the workings of particles at a subatomic scale contradict everyday logic. ‘We are in an area which is very difficult to imagine because it's so different from the macroscopic world we live in,' explains Vlatko Vedral, professor of quantum information science at Leeds University. ‘So it's very difficult to relate everyday objects we know to the behaviour of small objects.'" (http://www.physics.org... )

The examples you named don't qualify as radically different. And I noticed that you cited astronomy, astronomy on the very large macro scale gets very fuzzy too. Does it seem logical to you for there to be an infinitely dense, infinitely round object? What about the nonexistence of space prior to the big bang? What is there if there is no space? The Macro and Micro are what qualify as "radically different"....and they do seem at odds with our natural perceptions of logic.

The Fool:: I gave this very argument before that NO BODY seems to know it completly. Then how does anybody know it is complete. Its not they are appeal to faith because it works with something but not everything. Which mean it will eventually need to be replaced.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

I agree that I believe that there are certain limits to human cognitive ability and this acts as a limit to how much we can "understand" the universe.

It's just like computers. We can be fairly certain of the limits of computer cognitive ability and know there are problems that current models of computers can't solve.

The only solution to this problem would for it to be evolutionary adaptive to gain high intelligence, or use of genetic engineering and/or drugs. I suppose one can make the case that computers can be used in cases where human cognitive abilities are limited. And they are used quite frequently for these tasks as well. However, the cognitive intelligence of a computer is limited by the cognitive intelligence of its programmer.

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

I'm not going to spend too much time with this but needless to say basic logical truths form the basis of our rationality. I don't know what to say now that you've doubted them, I don't know what I could say that could re-instill your faith in the law of non-contradiction or excluded middle - either it's raining outside or it's not raining outside.

The reason people don't understand quantum mechanics is because it's batshit complicated and few people have the time and energy to devote themselves to understanding it.

The Fool: it a form of appealing to ignorance, most professional dont' claim to know all of him. One of my best friend majored in quantum mechanics and he says there is quite a few unjustified old assumptions.

I'm appealing to ignorance?

You could probably say the same thing about Hegel (though understanding is a matter of degrees.)

The Fool: No Hegel starts to makes no sense when he tries to fit theology in it. This causes him to fall apart. Throwing any God, of supernatural entities will bust up your philosophy. Because its and appeal to ignorance.

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

I'm not going to spend too much time with this but needless to say basic logical truths form the basis of our rationality. I don't know what to say now that you've doubted them, I don't know what I could say that could re-instill your faith in the law of non-contradiction or excluded middle - either it's raining outside or it's not raining outside.

The reason people don't understand quantum mechanics is because it's batshit complicated and few people have the time and energy to devote themselves to understanding it.

The Fool: it a form of appealing to ignorance, most professional dont' claim to know all of him. One of my best friend majored in quantum mechanics and he says there is quite a few unjustified old assumptions.

I'm appealing to ignorance?

The Fool: the its not black and white fallacy. aka You need to know that it is because of complexity, that people don't know it. But nobody, claim to fully understanded. Its like saying hey you can't do that. Why? it really complicated.

You could probably say the same thing about Hegel (though understanding is a matter of degrees.)

The Fool: No Hegel starts to makes no sense when he tries to fit theology in it. This causes him to fall apart. Throwing any God, of supernatural entities will bust up your philosophy. Because its and appeal to ignorance.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

I'm not going to spend too much time with this but needless to say basic logical truths form the basis of our rationality. I don't know what to say now that you've doubted them, I don't know what I could say that could re-instill your faith in the law of non-contradiction or excluded middle - either it's raining outside or it's not raining outside.

The reason people don't understand quantum mechanics is because it's batshit complicated and few people have the time and energy to devote themselves to understanding it.

The Fool: it a form of appealing to ignorance, most professional dont' claim to know all of him. One of my best friend majored in quantum mechanics and he says there is quite a few unjustified old assumptions.

I'm appealing to ignorance?

The Fool: the its not black and white fallacy. aka You need to know that it is because of complexity, that people don't know it. But nobody, claim to fully understanded. Its like saying hey you can't do that. Why? it really complicated.

I definitely didn't commit a fallacy, you just need a better grasp on what a fallacy is. I really just said it's mad complicated, and because it's mad complicated very few people understand it. This is a position taken by Richard Feynman and most present day physicists who all acknowledge the complexity of the topic. If there was a fallacy for attributing false fallacies to normal statements you'd be the leader in that category.

You could probably say the same thing about Hegel (though understanding is a matter of degrees.)

The Fool: No Hegel starts to makes no sense when he tries to fit theology in it. This causes him to fall apart. Throwing any God, of supernatural entities will bust up your philosophy. Because its and appeal to ignorance.

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

I'm not going to spend too much time with this but needless to say basic logical truths form the basis of our rationality. I don't know what to say now that you've doubted them, I don't know what I could say that could re-instill your faith in the law of non-contradiction or excluded middle - either it's raining outside or it's not raining outside.

The reason people don't understand quantum mechanics is because it's batshit complicated and few people have the time and energy to devote themselves to understanding it.

The Fool: it a form of appealing to ignorance, most professional dont' claim to know all of him. One of my best friend majored in quantum mechanics and he says there is quite a few unjustified old assumptions.

I'm appealing to ignorance?

The Fool: the its not black and white fallacy. aka You need to know that it is because of complexity, that people don't know it. But nobody, claim to fully understanded. Its like saying hey you can't do that. Why? it really complicated.

OMGJustinBieber : I definitely didn't commit a fallacy, you just need a better grasp on what a fallacy is.

The reason people don't understand quantum mechanics is because it's batshit complicated and few people have the time and energy to devote themselves to understanding it.

E.g. I don't know quantum mechanic therefore the Reason others don't know it because its complicated.

The Fool: if you don't know it, then you can't claim to know that it its makes sense Unless you are claiming to know it. (appeal to ignorance)

OMGJustinBieber :just need a better grasp on what a fallacy is.

The Fool: Bold assumption fallacy You don't know what I do or do not grasp. You have no idea who I am or what my credintials are. You just blab, ,blab. blab bla. Nonsense.

OMGJustinBieber: I really just said it's mad complicated, and because it's mad complicated very few people understand it.VSThe reason people don't understand quantum mechanics is because it's batshit complicated and few people have the time and energy to devote themselves to understanding it.

The Fool: Blah blah blh (fallacy)

OMGJustinBieber: This is a position taken by Richard Feynman and most present day physicists who all acknowledge the complexity of the topic.

The Fool: (appeal to authority fallacy)

OMGJustinBieber: If there was a fallacy for attributing false fallacies to normal statements you'd be the leader in that category.

You could probably say the same thing about Hegel (though understanding is a matter of degrees.)

The Fool: No Hegel starts to makes no sense when he tries to fit theology in it. This causes him to fall apart. Throwing any God, of supernatural entities will bust up your philosophy. Because its and appeal to ignorance.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

I'm not going to spend too much time with this but needless to say basic logical truths form the basis of our rationality. I don't know what to say now that you've doubted them, I don't know what I could say that could re-instill your faith in the law of non-contradiction or excluded middle - either it's raining outside or it's not raining outside.

The reason people don't understand quantum mechanics is because it's batshit complicated and few people have the time and energy to devote themselves to understanding it.

The Fool: it a form of appealing to ignorance, most professional dont' claim to know all of him. One of my best friend majored in quantum mechanics and he says there is quite a few unjustified old assumptions.

I'm appealing to ignorance?

The Fool: the its not black and white fallacy. aka You need to know that it is because of complexity, that people don't know it. But nobody, claim to fully understanded. Its like saying hey you can't do that. Why? it really complicated.

OMGJustinBieber : I definitely didn't commit a fallacy, you just need a better grasp on what a fallacy is.

The reason people don't understand quantum mechanics is because it's batshit complicated and few people have the time and energy to devote themselves to understanding it.

E.g. I don't know quantum mechanic therefore the Reason others don't know it because its complicated.

The Fool: if you don't know it, then you can't claim to know that it its makes sense Unless you are claiming to know it. (appeal to ignorance)

OMGJustinBieber :just need a better grasp on what a fallacy is.

The Fool: Bold assumption fallacy You don't know what I do or do not grasp. You have no idea who I am or what my credintials are. You just blab, ,blab. blab bla. Nonsense.

OMGJustinBieber: I really just said it's mad complicated, and because it's mad complicated very few people understand it.VSThe reason people don't understand quantum mechanics is because it's batshit complicated and few people have the time and energy to devote themselves to understanding it.

The Fool: Blah blah blh (fallacy)

OMGJustinBieber: This is a position taken by Richard Feynman and most present day physicists who all acknowledge the complexity of the topic.

The Fool: (appeal to authority fallacy)

OMGJustinBieber: If there was a fallacy for attributing false fallacies to normal statements you'd be the leader in that category.

You could probably say the same thing about Hegel (though understanding is a matter of degrees.)

The Fool: No Hegel starts to makes no sense when he tries to fit theology in it. This causes him to fall apart. Throwing any God, of supernatural entities will bust up your philosophy. Because its and appeal to ignorance.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)

At 7/25/2012 7:12:14 PM, 000ike wrote:We evolved physically and cognitively in order to successfully compete for survival on Earth. In this process, efficiency and necessity ruled. So, it only makes sense that we have logical capabilities only suited to the macro environment. From an evolutionary perspective, it would be both inefficient and unnecessary for humans to understand anything beyond the occurrences of their present environment. This would explain why Quantum Mechanics is so difficult to grasp. The result is that Logic cannot possibly be accurate. Even the conception of logic (unchangeable rules that govern reality), might be false...and only appear true. There may be no rules at all.

The conclusion is this: Attempts to understand things of a radically different nature than we are accustomed to are futile. Thus God is unapproachable by all means.

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

The problem with this rationale is that evolution may (and one could argue with force has) instill a mechanism which allows for the investigation of things not directly relevant to evolution.

Take, for instance, the counterfactual. The ability to mentally process counterfactuals (how things would be if something where otherwise) has a wide range of evolutionary advantages. For instance "what if I used wood instead of dirt last week? Would my house still have blown down? Maybe I should try wood."

However, this ability to process counterfactuals can be applied to things that are not evolutionarily relevant. For instance "what if I never existed" or "what if the universe was created by something else?" "What would my life be like if I had lived x way instead of y way?"

This mental process would occur simultaneously with, say, the basic imitation learning that chimps use (where they learn "sticks can be used as tools" but not "objects shaped like sticks can be used as tools" unless they physically experiment.

Because we posses mental mechanisms like "counterfactuals" there is no reason to think we cannot cognize about things not directly relevant to evolution.

At 7/25/2012 7:12:14 PM, 000ike wrote:We evolved physically and cognitively in order to successfully compete for survival on Earth. In this process, efficiency and necessity ruled. So, it only makes sense that we have logical capabilities only suited to the macro environment. From an evolutionary perspective, it would be both inefficient and unnecessary for humans to understand anything beyond the occurrences of their present environment. This would explain why Quantum Mechanics is so difficult to grasp. The result is that Logic cannot possibly be accurate. Even the conception of logic (unchangeable rules that govern reality), might be false...and only appear true. There may be no rules at all.

The conclusion is this: Attempts to understand things of a radically different nature than we are accustomed to are futile. Thus God is unapproachable by all means.

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

The problem with this rationale is that evolution may (and one could argue with force has) instill a mechanism which allows for the investigation of things not directly relevant to evolution.

Take, for instance, the counterfactual. The ability to mentally process counterfactuals (how things would be if something where otherwise) has a wide range of evolutionary advantages. For instance "what if I used wood instead of dirt last week? Would my house still have blown down? Maybe I should try wood."

However, this ability to process counterfactuals can be applied to things that are not evolutionarily relevant. For instance "what if I never existed" or "what if the universe was created by something else?" "What would my life be like if I had lived x way instead of y way?"

This mental process would occur simultaneously with, say, the basic imitation learning that chimps use (where they learn "sticks can be used as tools" but not "objects shaped like sticks can be used as tools" unless they physically experiment.

Because we posses mental mechanisms like "counterfactuals" there is no reason to think we cannot cognize about things not directly relevant to evolution.

Good point Wnope, seems every time the subject of abiogenesis comes up the knee jerk dismissive response is that abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and the hell it doesn't, it's absolutely implied by the TOE and it makes understanding abiogenesis a necessary thing.

The TOE has far reaching implications because it is a way of thinking about reality over vast temporal distances, so it necessarily raises important questions that are directly relevant to evolution

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

At 7/25/2012 7:12:14 PM, 000ike wrote:The result is that Logic cannot possibly be accurate. Even the conception of logic (unchangeable rules that govern reality), might be false...and only appear true. There may be no rules at all.

The conclusion is this: Attempts to understand things of a radically different nature than we are accustomed to are futile. Thus God is unapproachable by all means.

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

Maybe you were created by some demented, omnipotent being who delights in systematically deceiving you by providing you with the thoughts of an environment that isn't actually real and relishes to think what falsehoods he can get you to conceive; maybe you're just a brain in a vat; maybe EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS A LIE!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm really just pontificating, but I'd like to know in what ways this is wrong or inaccurate.

I'm not going to spend too much time with this but needless to say basic logical truths form the basis of our rationality. I don't know what to say now that you've doubted them, I don't know what I could say that could re-instill your faith in the law of non-contradiction or excluded middle - either it's raining outside or it's not raining outside.

The reason people don't understand quantum mechanics is because it's batshit complicated and few people have the time and energy to devote themselves to understanding it.

The Fool: it a form of appealing to ignorance, most professional dont' claim to know all of him. One of my best friend majored in quantum mechanics and he says there is quite a few unjustified old assumptions.

I'm appealing to ignorance?

The Fool: the its not black and white fallacy. aka You need to know that it is because of complexity, that people don't know it. But nobody, claim to fully understanded. Its like saying hey you can't do that. Why? it really complicated.

OMGJustinBieber: Bold assertion fallacy.

OMGJustinBieber : I definitely didn't commit a fallacy, you just need a better grasp on what a fallacy is.

The reason people don't understand quantum mechanics is because it's batshit complicated and few people have the time and energy to devote themselves to understanding it.

E.g. I don't know quantum mechanic therefore the Reason others don't know it because its complicated.

The Fool: if you don't know it, then you can't claim to know that it its makes sense Unless you are claiming to know it. (appeal to ignorance)

OMGJustinBieber: Bold assertion fallacy.

OMGJustinBieber :just need a better grasp on what a fallacy is.

The Fool: Bold assumption fallacy You don't know what I do or do not grasp. You have no idea who I am or what my credintials are. You just blab, ,blab. blab bla. Nonsense.

OMGJustinBieber: You've told me that you have no credentials, no degrees.

OMGJustinBieber: I really just said it's mad complicated, and because it's mad complicated very few people understand it.VSThe reason people don't understand quantum mechanics is because it's batshit complicated and few people have the time and energy to devote themselves to understanding it.

The Fool: Blah blah blh (fallacy)

OMGJustinBieber: This is a position taken by Richard Feynman and most present day physicists who all acknowledge the complexity of the topic.

The Fool: (appeal to authority fallacy)

OMGJustinBieber: Bold assertion fallacy.

OMGJustinBieber: If there was a fallacy for attributing false fallacies to normal statements you'd be the leader in that category.

You could probably say the same thing about Hegel (though understanding is a matter of degrees.)

The Fool: No Hegel starts to makes no sense when he tries to fit theology in it. This causes him to fall apart. Throwing any God, of supernatural entities will bust up your philosophy. Because its and appeal to ignorance.

OMGJustinBieber: If there was a fallacy for attributing false fallacies to normal statements you'd be the leader in that category.

Well put Bieber, I'm beginning to think he's actually a bot programmed to randomly toss out fallacies from the Wiki list.

And I wonder what autoresponse fallacy it will assign to that comment.

The Fool: Sidewalker has no good intetion here. He opening is trap because he hates me for my God arguments. I belief crazy town is two forums down walker.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL